Conspicuous consumption versus utilitarian ideals: How different levels of power shape consumer behavior

By Derek D. Rucker, Adam D. Galinsky. 2009

399 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ecad1ec616484726f092d967c4b2c55e820eaf53

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Consumer Meaning Making: The Meaning of Luxury Brands in a Democratised Luxury World (2013, background): “As Rucker and Galinsky (2009) suggest that high-powered individuals have a stronger preference for quality appeals, while low-powered individuals, who are generally younger than high-powered individuals, have a stronger preference for status appeals, it might, for instance, be interesting in future ”
The Abercrombie & Fitch Effect: The Impact of Physical Dominance on Male Customers' Status-Signaling Consumption (2018, methodology): “This was deemed important because previous research has shown that people who feel powerless rather than powerful are more inclined to prefer larger logos (Rucker and Galinsky 2009).”
“Alexa, order me a pizza!”: The mediating role of psychological power in the consumer–voice assistant interaction (2021, background): “…experiencing a lower sense of power view themselves as more dependent on others (Rucker & Galinsky, 2016), spend more money on others than themselves (Rucker et al., 2011), and place more emphasis on visible or conspicuous consumption to signal their status to others (Rucker & Galinsky, 2009).”
The Experience versus the Expectations of Power: A Recipe for Altering the Effects of Power on Behavior (2014, background): “They responded using a sliding scale where they could choose from 0% of the retail price to 120% of the retail price (see Rucker and Galinsky 2008, 2009).”
All That Glitters Is Not Gold: How Others’ Status Influences the Effect of Power Distance Belief on Status Consumption (2016, neutral): “One way they can do so is by consuming status products, which serve as an effective means to signal their higher status under upward social comparison (Hopkins and Kornienko 2004; Rucker and Galinsky 2008, 2009).”
Generous Paupers and Stingy Princes: Power Drives Consumer Spending on Self versus Others (2011, background): “If status is consumed to increase the value of the self in the eyes of others (Dubois, Rucker, and Galinsky 2010; Rucker and Galinsky 2009), when objects are bought for others, low power may not increase spending when the objects are high status.”
Fundamental motives: How evolutionary needs influence consumer behavior (2013, background): “This system can also be activated when people are deprived of status or power (Rucker & Galinsky, 2009).”
Protecting the self through consumption: Status goods as affirmational commodities (2010, background): “Study 3 also serves to address several alternate explanations (i.e., symbolic consumption, affect) and better situate our work among the growing body of literature on compensatory consumption (e.g., Rucker & Galinsky, 2008; Rucker & Galinsky, 2009).”
The Compensatory Consumer Behavior Model: How self-discrepancies drive consumer behavior (2017, neutral): “Researchers have also uncovered evidence consistent with a symbolic self-completion strategy regarding self-discrepancies related to one's academic ability (Dalton, 2008), appearance (Hoegg et al., 2014), sense of power (Rucker & Galinsky, 2008, 2009), and affiliation (Mead et al., 2011).”